THE ANNIE S. COOPER.
Coxsackie from entering her own slip had she chosen. Her whole afterpart was therefore liable to take fire as soon as the mass of flame should pour out from the east end of the falling warehouse, not more than 60 ;The service rendered by the Coxsackie;was therefore oithe :vaIl1e to the I<aaterskill. She was in ext1;eme danger; ing;"butrt1;le help of the Coxsackie, in my judgment, could saved injury, jf D!lt destruction. Though the Coxsackie was a her V;ery of only 'iH tons, worth about $8,000, she hL!dbeen employed;.before to assist the in moving, and her service ill t4js .instance was sufficient for the purpose. The I;lervicewas, however, short, probably less than halfan hour all told, and without danger to the Goxsapkie. One circumstance, however, m.ention. The master 0£: ,the ferry-boat,Who was apart owner oCher, was also the owner pf an ,hotel situated witb,irl;7l> feet of the burning warehouse and threateneq the fire. ,4cting upon the selfish.motives that are apt ofxnost men under such circulDstances, he would, to control, ferry-boa,tas Soon as possible to the nearest point of after safety; have,J;las,tened to look A.fter the safety of his hotel, without ing tQ:a:.elp others. Instead of doing this, he answered the; sumof and, after this salvage service, dropptld her in the sbreamjf,l$ BQ9n as she .was safe, and hurJie4 'to his hotel, to find it consumed. "Tliisconduct pelollgs to the cIasso(sel£.sacrificing and heroic actjonSj' Q.ll.'dshould. be compensated as such. ·'l'he Kaaterskill was worth.from $100,000 to.$140,OOO. I think. $2,500 will be a moderate 3ndsuitable for the service rendered, of which $1,200 should be awarded. to,the for the reasons above £ltated,$l"OOO to the owners oithe C9:xsackie, $300 to the other two officers ofthe Coxsac1de, in proportion to t!lj:),ir wages, with costs. A decree may be entered accordingl,y.
TaB ANNIE S. CooPEB. Umn
STATES 1I·· THE
E. D. touiriana.
BIIIl'PING REGULATIONS-LIGHTs-ToWING Loa-RAFT.
Rev. St. U. S. § 4233, rule 4, providing that "steam-vessels, when towing other vessels, shall carry two bright white mast-head lights vertically, in addition to their side-lights. so as to distinguish them from other steam-vessels, "applies to a steam-tug towing a raft of logs, though such raft may not come strictly within Rev. St. U. S. § 8, declaring that" the word ·vessel' includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water. "
In Admiralty. Libel of information against the steam-tug Annie S. Cooper for failure to carry the lights required by law while towing a log-raft. Libel dismissed.
.O. S. Rwe;for claimant. Wm. Grant,for the United States..
BILLINGS, J.' A libel of information has been filed against,this steamIt is not tug for not carrying the ligbtsrequired by law, viz., rule charged that she had not. the lights required by the statute for a steam'forth. It tug which had in tow a vessel, viz.,; rule 4, hereinafter is'tlliarged that'she had in tow araft'of logs, and nota vessel. The qQestion, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Under section 4233 of the Statutes, does rule 4 of that section include a steam-tug towing a raft of logs? That rule 'is as foHows: "Rule 4. when other vessels, shall carrY' two bright, white mast-head lights verticallyf in addition to their sidErlights,so tIS to distinguish them from .The first question presented is whether, under rule 4, a raft of logs is a vessel. Section 3 ·of the Revised StatThe word' vessel' includese\'tery utes (1873) thus describes' .eli' other artificial used. tJtcapable desbription of usedasa means of transportation on water/' Araft'of logs is a .whereby the logs themselves are kept and thus made-capable· of being transported.' . They are Mtthameans, and the #hole structure is not 'a means oftransporting anything bl1ttbe things make up the strUcture. Therefore a raft: 'might not be strlctly a vessel. .But,in interpreting a rule, we' must .look a·t· the reason' 6fthe rule. The objeotof the rule' was to 'requite .steam-tugs having· tlhings .in tow to carry certain lights to enable all vessels to' kl1t')W'that -they were not steam-vessels The' different lighti -1srequired :ofothe steam-tug'having somethfng in towl to·eti!i.bM'a11: veS'ilelll' to keep 'Otltof the· Way. of· the tows. S.teatn'-tugs· J.iJ.avil1grafts in tow are not, by the statute and rules, distinguished from other steam.vessels, unless they are meant to be included within the scope of this ,rule. Can it make any difference with the danger to other vessels whether the tow is technically a vessel or a raft of logs? Clearly not. The reason of the rule makes ipnclude vessels and rafts of logs, or anything else which steam-tugs 'are' wonno tow. 'In my opinion, a steamtug, while towing a raft of logs, as tolights, is governed by rule 4, and not by rule 7 i;,i::I think,there'fore, the exception to;' the libel is well founded, and should be maintained. Let the libel be: .dismissed· . . .'.: .. '" ',
EAST TElS'NESSEE .I: V. R. CO.
fl. EAST TENNESSEE
& V. R.
(Circuit Cot/Jrt, N.
March Term, 1888.)
'When.o; railroad charter. gives the ;compBDy B right to sell its road within the state. tR. any company,incor!?Qrated by state, the purchasing company to have "I1U the rights and pnvileges" of the seller, a non-resident company, which purchoElelJ the road to form an extension of its line,does not thereby become 6 res- . jdljtlt CO!1'Oration, so as to take away ita right to remove a c6.11se from the state to ,'a fader&! court. .
OF RAILRO.lD CORPORATIONS.
On Motion to Remand'to the state court from which the cause was removed)' Motion refused. W. H.:Dabney and' R. T. Fouche, for the motion. J. W.· Underwood, opposed. MCCAY,J. This was a suit commenced in the superior court of Floyd oounty, Ga., against the Virginia & East Tennessee Railroad Company; and upon the petition of the defendant, claiming that it was aoorporation of the state of Tenneasee, had been removed to thiEf oourt for trial. Plaintiff now moves to remand the case, on the, ground, that the defendant" though a oorporation of Tennessee, is also a corporation of Georgia, ,and that this oourt has no jurisdiction of the controversy, since tbe parties are all citizens of Georgia. The question turns upon the following facts: The defendant was incorporated by the legislature of Tennessee, with authority to build and operate a railroad from Clevelarid, 'renn., to the Georgia line, and to extend its road to DaltQn,' Ga., by oonsent of the Georgia auth(Jrities. By various acts of the islature ofGeorgia this privilege was granted, and the road built, but no, expressed corporate rights in Georgia were by these aots conferred. The company got the right to extend anuoperate its road to DaltoI;l on certain: conditions, and, so far as this extension of ilie original road to. Dalton is.ooncerned, the right of the company has always been so treated. In 1874 or 1875 a railroade'Xtending froUlDalton-,Ga., to Selma, 1\la,,· known as the "Selma, Rome & Dalton Railroad," was sold u,nder-dUEl: process of law for the benefit of its creditorS,f1ol1d was bought tai'n persons, who afterwards, so Jar as that portion of the road lyingin Georgia is concerned, were incorporated under the name of the "SQuth. em Railroaa Company of Georgia." One of the provisiQns of this QQarter waaas tollows:
··Sec.6. That tbe said company shall have power to lease or sell "tbeir property within th.e state of Georgia to any other railroad company within tt:le state o( Georgia. and also to Such .railroad companies of other states as, by the laws of ,such state, may be so authorized, and upon such terms as mar be agreed upon by the board of directors and approved by a majority in terest of the stockholders of this company; ahd the said company so leasing or- buying shall have and possess all the rights and privill:!ges of this com. pany."
. :Urider this section of the charter the company sold that part of the 'Selma;:, Rome & Dalton Railroad'lyingiri Georgia to the East Tennessee v48F.no 9-45